)
Observing that the order passed by the patent official is "flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice", the bench comprising of IPAB Chairman Justice K N Basha and Technical Member (Patents) DPS Parmar, asked the Patent Office to consider the matter afresh.
S Majumdar, senior counsel appeared for Lupin argued that while the company has amended some of its claims, the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Mumbai, failed to consider those amended claims though the official specifically stated about the filing of subsequent amendments.
He argued that as a result the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the ground of non application of mind and as well as non consideration of the subsequent amended claims.
The IPAB observed that while the Assistant Controller in the order stated that the subsequent amendments were considered, there is no consideration of such amendment of claims at all by reading the entire order under challenge.
"We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order was passed flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice," said the IPAB order.
Setting aside the order under challenge, the IPAB has directed the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Mumbai to reconsider the matter afresh by considering the subsequent amended claims submitted by the appellant dated 27/12/2011 by affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant to put forward their case and their arguments and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the IPAB order.
